BHARTI BHUSHAN JINDAL vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LUDHIANA

Bench: MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA

6 of the Paper Book, under which it has declared income from business, capital gains and other sources. The income from other sources comprises of interest income received from banks and FDRs and also on unsecured loans. The total interest received on loans by the assessee during the year was Rs.4,17,600/-. The claim of the assessee is VIRENDRA

INDERPAL SINGH AHUJA vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER-CUM-A.C.I.T. ORS

Bench: MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL,MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

capital gain and consequential tax liability. The appellant preferred appeal which came to be dismissed vide order dated 18.01.2005 passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). He preferred further appeal before Tribunal which came to be dismissed vide order dated 22.02.2006. The Tribunal assessed sale consideration Rs.22,10,000/- per acre. 4. Learned Senior counsel for the appellant submits that

M/S PANCHSHEEL TEXTILE MANFAC. & TRAD. vs. C I T AND ANR.

Bench: MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL,MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA

6. The Commissioner o 05.10.2004 allo order dated 17.0 1999-2000 and 05.10.2004 and who vide its ord 7. Hen SUBMISSIONS 8. Lea appellant to car amendment in th their meeting da stock-in-trade an learned Assessin the appellant ha (O&M) and other connected ca sessing Officer while framing as 99-2000 and 2000-2001 vid 28.02.2003 respectively

PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2 CHANDIGARH vs. M/S SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CONSUMER HEALTHCARE LTD

Bench: MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL,MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

capital receipts particularly when the assessee was not owner of the patents but was only user on account of agreement with the owner? 5. The appellant is claiming that receipt of compensation of Rs.4.5 crore by respondent on account of denial of use of brands ‘ENO’ and ‘Fruit DEEPAK BISSYAN 2026.02.05 10:00 I attest to the accuracy and integrity

M/S MAJESTIC AUTO LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF IT & ANR

Bench: MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL,MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. 7. As per Section 35D of 1961 Act, where an assessee being an Indian company incurs any expenditure after the commencement of his business, in connection with the expansion of his undertaking or in connection with setting up his new business

M/S ROCKMAN CYCLES INDS. LTD. vs. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, LDH. AND ANR.

The appeals are allowed and impugned orders are

Bench: MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI,MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA

capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee), laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession". Explanation 1.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that any expenditure incurred by an assessee

CIT-I CHANDIGARH vs. M/S PB.INFO&COMM. TECH. CORP. LTD. CHD.

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI,MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA

6. Learned counsel for the respondent further emphasized that the amounts deposited with the assessee were only receipts and the taxable income would be only after deduction of expenses, which were to be incurred by it in the succeeding years. He, therefore, urged that the observations made by the authorities below that the additions as made by the assessing officer